Haryana

Ambala

CC/235/2017

Jaswinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Appsdaily Solutions Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

16 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 235 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 12.07.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 16.04.2018

 

 

Jaswinder Singh aged about 38 years, son of Sh. Kehar Singh resident of village Ugara, P.O. Bara, Tehsil and District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       Apps Daily Solutions Pvt Ltd. Regd. Office at D-3137, Oberoi Garden Estates, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400072, CIN No.U64200MH2008PTC187859 through  its Principal Officer.

2.       S.R.Jain Electronic, Near Kalka Chowk, Ambala City, District Ambala through its Proprietor/partner.

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender  Kumar, Member.            

                   Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

 

 

Present:       Ms. Kshama, counsel for the complainant.

                   OP No. 1 ex parte v.o.d.04.09.2017.

OP No.2 ex parte v.o.d. 23.01.2018.

 

 

ORDER:

(As per Pushpender Kumar)

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant has purchased one mobile set of Samsung Galaxy J7 (P)/G610FZDDINS GOLD from the OP No.2 and the addressee advised  the complainant to get insured his mobile from OP No.1 and he paid the sum of Rs. 20,549/- (Rs. 18,800/- for mobile and Rs. 1,749/- for insurance) vide Invoice No.1764 dated 31.10.2016.  The said mobile was falls from the pocket of the complainant on road and damaged in the month of January, 2017 and complainant reached to the OP No.1. On 16.01.2017, on the instruction of the OP No.1 the complainant reached at collection centre of Apps Daily situated  at Shri Radhey Complex, Science Market, Ambala Cantt. The agent of the OP No.1 took the mobile of the complainant and asked him to pay Rs. 1500/- for service charge and he paid the same and they issued a Job sheet dated 16.01.2017 to the complainant. After that, the complainant reached many times to OP Nos.1 & 2 and send E-mails but they putting the matter on one pretext to other and just harassing the complainant. The complainant suffered mental and financial harassment at the instance of the Ops and further Ops are deficient and negligent in rendering service to the complainant and are also guilty of unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notice issued to Op No.1 but none has turned up on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 04.09.2017. OP No.2 appeared through counsel but thereafter remained absent from the proceedings of this case and ultimately he was proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 23.01.2018.

3.               To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A with documents as annexure C-1 to C-2 and close his evidence. Op No.1 was proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 04.09.2017 and OP No.2 was also proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 23.01.2018.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. The case of complainant is that the complainant had purchased one mobile set of Samsung Galaxy J7(P)/ G610FZDDINS  GOLD  vide invoice  No.1764 dated 31.10.2016 for a sum of Rs. 20,549/- (Rs.18,800/- for Mobile and Rs.1,749/- for insurance) Annexure C-1 from OP No.1. The complainant has come with the plea that the mobile phone got physical damaged during the subsistence of insurance period, which was valid for one year, but the Ops did not indemnify the loss suffered by him.  As per job sheet as Annexure C-2 clearly depicts that mobile handset was Physically damaged (display/Screen broken) and this document has been issued by service center. Therefore, it is very well established that the phone was not in working condition. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a benevolent social legislation as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in their judgements from time to time and is aimed at providing for better protection of the interests of the consumers as defined in the preamble to the Act itself but despite that the insurance companies are having tendencies to avoid the genuine claims on one pretext or the other and this is main reason of increasing of litigation between the insured and insurance companies. In the present complaint, the complainant got insured his mobile from OP No.1. Perusal of the case file reveals that the total cost of the mobile handset was Rs.20,549/- (including insurance amount) and the complainant had also paid a sum of Rs.1,500/- for repairing the mobile set during warranty period. It is also proved on the file that the OP No.1 has received the insurance premium from the complainant and mobile in question has been physical damaged during insurance period. Due to defect in the mobile, the complainant has been deprived of to use the hand set despite spending handsome amount. In the present case, the Ops despite registered notices not pursued the case and they were proceeded against ex-parte. As such, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant. We are view that OP No.1 has not settled the claim of the complainant inspite of taking the premium from the complainant which tantamounts deficient in service on the part of the OP No.1

5.                In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed against OP No.2 as it has sold the mobile in question as it is to the consumer and the present complaint is allowed against OP No.1 with costs and directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To pay the insured amount Rs. 18,800/- as Annexure C-1 to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.

 (ii)    Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 16.04.2018

                    

 

 

 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)       (ANAMIKA  GUPTA)          (D.N. ARORA)

Member                                 Member                                      President